The Supreme Court recently ruled that systemic challenges such as the COVID-19 pandemic, case allocation failures and lack of jurisdiction over police stations must be considered before evaluating a judge’s performance for termination. .Thus, low disposal rate alone cannot be a ground for dismissal of the concerned judge from service, especially when external circumstances impact judicial efficiency, the Bench of Justices BV Nagarathna and N Kotiswar Singh held..The Court made the observation while setting aside the termination of two women judicial officers from Madhya Pradesh.The two judicial officers, Sarita Choudhary and Aditi Kumar Sharma, who were removed from service by a resolution passed by the Administrative Committee of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in May 2023.The Court found that their termination was based on adverse remarks in their Annual Confidential Reports (ACRs), low disposal rates, and pending complaints, but without affording them a fair opportunity to respond.The apex court noted that the performance assessment of the petitioners had ignored key systemic challenges such as vacant courts, excessive interim applications, non-appearance of witnesses, and administrative inefficiencies. It observed that while the officers were criticized for low case disposal, external factors had significantly impeded their ability to meet unit targets.."The record does not reflect any consistent poor performance; the record speaks otherwise," the Court said, rejecting the argument that the officers had failed to meet performance benchmarks. It highlighted that the failure to consider broader circumstances amounted to an unfair evaluation process."It is also worth noting that so far neither the quality of her work nor the reasons of her health were ever noted to act as hindrances to her service. This is particular evident from absence of negative comments on her ‘State of health’ in any ACR In fact, the respondent-High Court submitted before us that the sole reason for grade ‘C-Good’ was her low disposal rate. At this point, it would be beneficial to appreciate the argument of the learned amicus to the effect that low disposal in the above factual backdrop should not be the sole reason for termination of this petitioner," the Court said..The Court took note of the fact that one of the petitioners, Aditi Kumar Sharma, had suffered from severe COVID-19 and a miscarriage, yet her performance was assessed without taking into account these medical and personal hardships.."The High Court has erred in acting agnostic to, inter alia, claims of insubordination of petitioner-Sarita Chaudhary and acute medical and emotional conditions battled by petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma. Despite still reeling from the effects of a severe case of Covid-19 and a miscarriage, the ACR for 2021 of petitioner-Aditi Kumar Sharma was downgraded by the Portfolio Judge from ‘B-Very Good’ to ‘C-Good’ only considering ‘pendency and disposal’.".The judgment also emphasized the need for judicial institutions to recognize the challenges faced by women judges, particularly concerning pregnancy, health conditions and systemic biases.It also addressed the wider issue of gender representation in the judiciary, stating that increasing the number of female judicial officers would contribute to dismantling gender stereotypes and fostering a more inclusive legal system.."Female judicial appointments, particularly at senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes, thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as to appropriate roles of men and women,"Supreme Court."Female judicial appointments, particularly at senior levels, can shift gender stereotypes, thereby changing attitudes and perceptions as to appropriate roles of men and women," the Court said. It underscored the importance of ensuring a judiciary that reflects societal diversity.Better representation of women would enhance the judiciary’s ability to respond to diverse social contexts, the top court opined..It also referenced India's international commitments under the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which mandates protections for women in the workforce, particularly during pregnancy and maternity."A miscarriage affects a person’s identity, leading to disappointments and challenges to motherhood identity and role, stigma and isolation, amongst other aspects," the Court remarked, stressing the need for judicial institutions to adopt a more compassionate approach towards female judicial officers..Ultimately, the Supreme Court set aside the termination orders and directed the immediate reinstatement of both officers within 15 days, ensuring that their service would be counted for pensionary and other benefits. The Court further directed that any pending complaints against the officers, which had been kept in abeyance due to their termination, should now be adjudicated in accordance with the law..[Read Judgment]
